Live data from Hacker News

NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

wbur.org

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#481
post #317

Should Twitter itself get a state sponsored label for getting concessions from San Francisco on their headquarters? https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-controller-hails-... Should Elon's account (or SpaceX or Telsa) have the same label because of their significant government funding? It's hard to see this as anything but silly politics games.

[flagged]

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#482
post #3

It's so wild witnessing the degradation of Twitter.

People keep saying this but I haven't noticed at all, I stopped using it for years but now I am back and have noticed only improvements

Sometimes it wont show me current tweets. My timeline is full of accounts that I don't follow and nobody I follow replied. I had to block musk's account because it was the only thing I was seeing. Tweets disappear when I try to look at them. Its been frustrating to say the least.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#483
State affiliated media indicates state run media... i.e. propaganda for the State. NPR is in no way propaganda for the State. It's probably the furthest a media outlet could be from such a thing. This as an example of people putting their own political ideologies above all else and labeling the things that don't necessarily support them as propaganda. It's wrong and short sighted.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"media"

Various companies in China are on US embargo lists because they are state-affiliated. Parsing out "media" companies is just hyper-targeting of ire. All companies that post tweets are effectively media. So why only highlight "news media" on a publication app such as Twitter?

The label is "state-affiliated media" so it makes sense that the label isn't applied to Twitter or SpaceX, not because they aren't state-affiliated, but because they aren't media.

And it makes sense for the label to be applied specifically to media entities because journalists are supposed to be unbiased, as opposed to e.g. Raytheon which is objectively state-affiliated but nobody expects to be doing objective reporting.

If a media outlet is being funded by the government then readers should know that because it could affect their coverage if they fear losing that funding as a result of critical reporting. This directly applies to NPR because Republicans regularly threaten to remove its public funding in response to their coverage.

The better criticism is, why is the label applied to NPR but not e.g. MSNBC? Pretty sure at least Comcast (MSNBC's parent company) receives a significant amount of government funding.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR needs money and they need editorial freedom, they seem to have both. I really can't fault them for that, editorial independence is the yardstick by which media should be judged unless there is outright ownership.

State funding of media, regardless of how it’s structured, creates an obvious conflict of interest with editorial freedom. Theoretically it’s possible for a state funded media company to exercise editorial freedom, just like it would be theoretically possible for a climate study funded by ExxonMobile to exercise academic freedom, but not without acknowledging that the conflict of interest exists. Maybe they are a hig…

The NPR makes no secret of its funding. But stamping a label on it like this implies that they are at the same level as the Chinese and Russian official state channels and lapdog institutions, which is the effect that Musk is going for here, which clearly is unfair to the NPR.

Any attempt to whitewash even aspects of it is in part giving credit to it and I'm just not going to carry Musk's water on this. It's a petty move by a petty person, who uses the platform that he bought to further his new best buddies interests by fomenting distrust in media institutions that he can't buy or control.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#488

Headline is incorrect. NPR’s label at the time of their departure was “government-funded media”. Changed after Musk conceded he got it wrong with the first label “State affiliated media”.

I strongly disagree with the notion that Elon Musk's labeling of NPR as 'state-affiliated' was an innocent mistake. In my opinion, Musk was well aware of the implications of lumping NPR together with propaganda outlets like RT and Xinhua. By doing so, he deliberately misrepresented NPR's journalistic integrity and reputation as a non-partisan news source. It's clear that NPR's objection was not to being labeled 'government-funded,' but rather to being unfairly associated with disreputable media organizations. This was a calculated move by Musk to undermine NPR's credibility and independence.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#489
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Please act in good faith. You know why Twitter did what it did, and you know why it was wrong. We know you know that. NPR is not state affiliated, or even government funded. Fox news airs ads from the US Military - is it state affiliated?

Your logical fallacy is incredulity. What Twitter did was absolutely ethical, and since it applies to all government funded media, it is not political in nature. Yes anyone accepting government ad money should be labelled as well.

Re: NPR quits Twitter after being labeled as 'state-affiliated media'

#490
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think he would be much more psychology healthy if he dropped social media. From what I guess about his personality, it's bad for him, and also probably doesn't address any of his psychological needs. Bad habits can be hard to break, but man does he go all in.

You know the gaming term "whale"? They're the people who get so sucked into a pay-to-play game that they'll spend thousands of dollars trying to get those winning feelings. I have to suspect those people are not, psychologically speaking, perfectly well.

If Twitter is the game, Musk is the whale with so much money that he bought the company. He spent $44 billion trying to win the game. And the wild thing to me is that he's still failing at it. Things like "let that sink in" [1] and re-labeling the building "Titter" [2] are just not very good jokes. For a mere one billion dollars, he could have hired every good comedy writer in the world. Instead he has lost at least $24 billion while generating enormous amounts of reputation-puncturing press and very plausibly putting a famously hard-to-wreck company on the path to irrelevancy. If it's not the most spectacular own-goal in business history, I'd certainly like to hear about the worse ones.

[1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/let-t...

[2] https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-twitter-headquarters-sign-pain...

[3] https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/26/23657182/elon-musk-twitte...

Post reply on HN